Stuart Gray Was Not a Stiff
It turns out that I was wrong. According to Dave Berri, Stuart Gray was actually a good player for the Hornets.
Gray – especially the year he played in Charlotte – was not a horrible player. Here are some of his career marks:
* Career Record: 0.022 WP48, 1.6 Wins Produced
* 1989-90 (with Charlotte): 0.111 WP48, 1.1 Wins Produced
* Year 4 to Year 6 (1987-88 to 1989-90): 0.085 WP48, 3.6 Wins ProducedAn average player will post a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.100. So Gray was only above average the one year he played for Bradbury’s Hornets. …
As Gray indicated, he was not a scorer. His strength was rebounding. As is often noted, the non-scoring aspects of the game are often undervalued. So it’s not surprising that many people thought Gray – the quintessential non-scorer – was not well regarded.
This demonstrates why you should never rely on your teenage memories. Mea Culpa, Stuart. Also, Hurricane Hugo was not your fault. 
“As is often noted, the non-scoring aspects of the game are often undervalued.”
Works the same in baseball, eh?
Intangibles!!
No. Specifically not “intangibles.”
Intangibles is a couple of Hornets going hot-rodding together and changing the direction of the franchise. (Not to mention having an owner who committed r&p on the city, followed by David Stern doing same after JC moved away.)
Defence and rebounding and having a pass defence (that pigskin thing) and setting a screen and having a greater range ON the field than Derek Jeter are the types of things that go into putting a team that has a chance of winning together.
All of Doug Flynn’s CYO Player of the Year Awards (not to mentin any clubhouse home runs) didn’t make the early-1980s Mets anything other than a Scalper’s Nightmare.
Not intangibles any more than RFK’s old description of the nation and GDP.